Good to see this being introduced now. Fudging the issue for another 8/9/10 months to ´consider the implications´ is just stupid. It is wrong, repeal it now.
However, would have been happier had anyone but Lieberman proposed it. This opportunistic leech is a disgrace to the Senate. No doubt this is just a ploy to try and appease the Democrats in the hope he can keep his little ´perks´.
Surely they realise that openness has had no ill effects when introduced in European armies and here. In fact it has been a great success.
I seem to remember, around the time that the ban was repealed in this country that, according to those against lifting the ban, it would lead to mass resignations in the armed forces, that moral would be compromised and that, generally, the sky would fall in.
Oddly enough that doesn’t seem to have happened, and likely didn’t in all the other countries around the world where this ridiculous ban has been lifted. Then again we haven’t seen a rush of people trying to enter into civil partnerships with their siblings or pets, which I remember was the reason some small minded people thought they were a bad idea.
Let’s hope that American armed forces personnel are finally allowed to join the 21st century.
Good to see they are trying to hasten the ban being lifted.
I just hope that overturning the law does not encourage LGBT people to join the army.
Considering the crimes of the US in Iraq; the US Army is not a place to which any person should want to sign up.
Chris: “Surely they realise that openness has had no ill effects when introduced in European armies and here. In fact it has been a great success.”
Yes, but we are not talking European armies here. The British army took more casualties by American friendly fire than it did from the enemy in the first Iraq war. Most of these people are just a bunch of poorly-trained, trigger-happy morons that run places like Abu-Ghraib and Guantanomo Bay, so what do you think *their* opinion on human rights is going to be? The politicians might think it will make a difference, but down on the ground I sure as hell wouldn’t want to be an gay openly grunt in the US Military.
‘openly gay grunt’ – sorry.
WHEN ARE THESE IDIOTS GOING TO FIX THE COMMENTS ON THIS DAMN CRAP WEBSITE!!??
Amerikans think they are somehow genetically different than other humans. Hence, the experiences of European military integration don’t apply. Studies have shown, however, that it is the higher officers and politicians who oppose integration. The average GI grunt doesn’t have a problem serving with gays.
And Dick of the Day Award goes to this comment:
“I just hope that overturning the law does not encourage LGBT people to join the army. Considering the crimes of the US in Iraq; the US Army is not a place to which any person should want to sign up.”
The sooner some of the more conservative elements of American society come face to face with real life gays in day to day situations (not pride marches and protests) the sooner their prejudices crumble. Look at that idiot who was jeered at and got booed off the stage at the Conservative Political Action Conference this last week following his homophobic rant. Look at Dick Cheney and General Petraeus talking about ending DADT. Americans of every political stripe are realising that us gays simply have rights as human beings, inalienable rights. They may still not like aspects of our lifestyle (though in most cases this is a caricature few of us live), but differing rights for us simply won’t hold water. Ironically this is even more true for constitutional purists than it is for modern liberals who believe in a ‘living’ Constitution. Small government conservatives know that a government which can deny fundamental rights to gays can do that to anyone.
Besides, unlike the anti-military types above who always have a low view of our soldiers, I know they can adapt, incorporate, and remain professional. We pay them to fight on Monday and build goodwill in a town on Tuesday. We ask them to be away from their families for months at a time. They are more than capable of dealing with change.
Gay soldiers will be subject to the same rules of conduct as everyone else. On this one, its the shrill civilian minority with their own private issues to sort through who will need to grow and accept, not the soldiers.
Chuckster – are you trying to say that the US Army is a force for good in the world.
Well I beg to differ.
Seeing as more people have died needlessly in Iraq since the US invaded, than under Saddam, I really don’t fathom how you can pretend the US is a force for good in Iraq.
Unless you are trying to claim that the families of the hundreds of thousands of needlessly dead in Iraq should be grateful that they are now ‘liberated’? Especially the gay Iraqis. Under Saddam they were relatively free. Since independence, gay Iraqis are openly being targetted and executed by islamic militias.
Don’t be fooled by this guys. Joe Leiberman is a sniviling opportunistic weasel!
He was the vice presidential candiate back in the 2004 presidential election on the Gore ticket as a democrate in in 2008 he went against the decomrates and against Obama by supporting McCain including his anti-gay stance.
Now I’m not really a fan of Obama’s (i was rooting for Hilary), but this guy is simply trying to pander to the gays, beat Obama to the finish line and show him up. What he should be doing is offering his Commander in Chief support and try to help Obama get this Don’t Ask Don’t Tell policy overturned faster.
This isn’t anything about help the Gay Rights Movement. It’s underhanded Washington Politics as its back stabbing nastiest.
“Besides, unlike the anti-military types above who always have a low view of our soldiers”
Well, sorry, I don’t agree. But those who can’t think for themselves, tend to fight. The US army has hardly an exemplary record when it comes to being a force for good in the world, forgive me if I don’t fawn over your “American heros”, but that doesn’t make me anti-military.